Prosecution Insights
Prosecution Insights
Technology area: Transportation, E-Commerce & Mechanical Systems
2 pending office actions • 1 art units • 2 examiners • 0 of 2 (0%) have an AI response strategy ready
Fracta currently has 2 pending office actions within the Transportation, E-Commerce & Mechanical Systems technology area. These cases are split between 2 distinct examiners. Both actions are located within 1 distinct art unit, providing a consistent technical environment for the company's filings. This structure suggests that while the company is dealing with different individuals, the underlying technical standards and prior art references are likely to be similar across the portfolio, which can simplify the preparation of responses.
The busiest examiner, OUELLETTE, JONATHAN P, is responsible for 1 pending office action. This examiner handles a portion of the company's total pending volume of 2 office actions. With 2 distinct examiners but only 1 distinct art unit, the company must manage multiple individual perspectives while operating under the same art unit guidelines. This situation allows the applicant to apply insights gained from 1 examiner to another, given their shared art unit context. The focus remains on navigating the specific requirements of OUELLETTE, JONATHAN P and the other examiner to resolve the pending actions.
Based on the USPTO statutory response window for each pending office action. 1 of the docket's apps have a known mailing date; the rest are excluded from the tile counts.
Difficulty is derived from the rejection statutes on the most recent pending office action. §101-driven and multi-statute cases are graded Hard; §112-only and obviousness-type double-patenting cases are graded Easy; everything else is Medium. "Unknown" means we have not yet parsed a statute for that office action.
| Bucket | Cases |
|---|---|
| §101 only | 1 (50%) |
| §101 + other | 1 (50%) |
How the docket's pending cases split across USPTO tech-center bands.
Manual office-action response work runs about 10 hours per case. The time-saved bands below show what IP Author's prosecution pipeline typically delivers — a conservative 20% on the low end, 35% in the middle, 50% on the high end.
| Examiner | Apps on this docket | Allow rate | Interview lift |
|---|---|---|---|
| OUELLETTE, JONATHAN P | 1 | 66.4% | +29.5% |
| WOODWORTH, II, ALLAN J | 1 | 38.7% | +40.0% |
Multi-statute / §101-driven matters, or cases in front of an examiner with an allow rate under 30%. The top 2 ordered by deadline are shown.
| App # | Title | Examiner | Due in |
|---|---|---|---|
| 18664212 | Methods of Imputing Attribute Information for Infrastructure Elements | WOODWORTH, II, ALLAN J | 17d overdue |
| 19050064 | PROCESSING DATA FOR PREDICTING PIPE FAILURE | OUELLETTE, JONATHAN P | — |
Cases in front of an examiner whose interview lift is 10 percentage points or more — i.e. interviewed cases historically resolve more favorably than non-interviewed ones. The top 2 ordered by deadline are shown.
| App # | Title | Examiner | Due in |
|---|---|---|---|
| 18664212 | Methods of Imputing Attribute Information for Infrastructure Elements | WOODWORTH, II, ALLAN J | 17d overdue |
| 19050064 | PROCESSING DATA FOR PREDICTING PIPE FAILURE | OUELLETTE, JONATHAN P | — |
| Art Unit | Apps |
|---|---|
| 3622 | 1 |
| App # | Title | Examiner | Art Unit | Statutes | Status | Due in | AI | Filed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 19050064 | PROCESSING DATA FOR PREDICTING PIPE FAILURE | OUELLETTE, JONATHAN P | — | §101§102§112Other | Non-Final OA | — | Pending | Feb 10, 2025 |
| 18664212 | Methods of Imputing Attribute Information for Infrastructure Elements | WOODWORTH, II, ALLAN J | 3622 | §101 | Non-Final OA | 17d overdue | Pending | May 14, 2024 |
IP Author helps IP teams respond to office actions faster with AI-generated responses, examiner analytics, and prosecution intelligence.
Start Free Trial